From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11604 invoked by alias); 10 Dec 2013 15:49:13 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 11594 invoked by uid 89); 10 Dec 2013 15:49:12 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from Unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 15:49:12 +0000 Received: from int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id rBAFn4aH004214 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 10 Dec 2013 10:49:04 -0500 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id rBAFn2rq019984; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 10:49:03 -0500 Message-ID: <52A737EE.80800@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 15:49:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130625 Thunderbird/17.0.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andrew Burgess CC: "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH] Call get_compiler_info directly from test_compiler_info if needed. References: <52A728A0.1050208@broadcom.com> <52A72C70.5040305@redhat.com> <52A7303B.2080901@broadcom.com> In-Reply-To: <52A7303B.2080901@broadcom.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2013-12/txt/msg00378.txt.bz2 On 12/10/2013 03:16 PM, Andrew Burgess wrote: > On 10/12/2013 3:00 PM, Pedro Alves wrote: >> On 12/10/2013 02:43 PM, Andrew Burgess wrote: >>> proc test_compiler_info { {compiler ""} } { >>> global compiler_info >>> >>> + # Check that compiler_info has been initialised >>> + if [string match "" $compiler_info] { >>> + if [get_compiler_info] { >>> + warning "Could not get compiler info" >>> + return -1 >>> + } >>> + } >> >> What about get_compiler_info's $arg? > > In the cases where I removed calls to get_compiler_info no arg was being > passed anyway, my assumption then is that in most cases the "default" > result of get_compiler_info is fine. > > If you really want to pass some args to get_compiler_info you can still > do that in a separate call, and I left in place (in gdb.exp) a call that > does just this. > > The code in test_compiler_info will not overwrite an existing > compiler_info value, so if you've taken care to call get_compiler_info > yourself then all should still work as expected. Yes, but, if the interface will be "you don't need to call get_compiler_info yourself, except ...", is there any gain in doing this here? The current rule is "you need to call get_compiler_info yourself, period.", which seems easier to explain. E.g., here: > @@ -2027,10 +2027,6 @@ gdb_caching_proc skip_altivec_tests { > > # Make sure we have a compiler that understands altivec. > set compile_flags {debug nowarnings} > - if [get_compiler_info] { > - warning "Could not get compiler info" > - return 1 > - } > if [test_compiler_info gcc*] { > set compile_flags "$compile_flags additional_flags=-maltivec" > } elseif [test_compiler_info xlc*] { Before, the removed get_compiler_info would always overwrite whatever was in the compiler_info before. Now, if the previous call to get_compiler_info happened to get an $arg, test_compiler_info will now reuse the wrong compiler_info. It seems to me that it should be get_compiler_info that caches its results, not test_compiler_info, taking into account $arg. And then, if we want to get rid of the need to call get_compiler_info before test_compiler_info, then test_compiler_info should have likewise an $arg parameter that gets passed down to the get_compiler_info call. -- Pedro Alves